Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4280610" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree it's absent. There is also no example of such a wording in the Fighter powers - the closest example is Iron Bulwark, which has "Effect: You gain a +1 power bonus (+2 if using a shield)".And, conversely, the existing power could have been written like this if it wanted to make your reading definitive: "Hit: 2w + STR, and slowed if wielding ...." (note that this is not needed to avoid ambiguity for the other Weapon entries indented under Hit, because they all adjust damage, or other conditions, that are themselves specified under the Hit entry).So I don't think it's wishful thinking - in my day job I'm a lawyer, and true constructions of legislation have been established on the basis of the sort of textual evidence I appealed to.Having said that, I'm prepared to bow to your greater familiarity with both the rules text and the underlying design principles.On the balance issue, for Rain of Blows I think it's probably much of a muchness: 2 secondary attacks each triggered by a hit is about the same as one secondary attack that's automatic, assuming a 50% chance to hit.For Dance of Steel I still think my interpretation is one way of addressing its otherwise seemingly problematic relationship with Steel Serpent Strike. But if I read you correctly you are saying that the 3rd level exploits are balanced among themselves, and are not unbalanced by being weaker than a 1st level encounter exploit.I'm not wanting to be bloody-minded - just a little over-proud when it comes to the application of principles of interpretation! I do not think that the layout, when read without any knowledge of designer intentions other than what can be discerned from the layout, is as definitive as Mouseferatu is saying.But if he is expressing a professional OR a playtester view about the balance of the powers on his interpretation, then I'm happy with that.</blockquote>

Verification